If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'll take 1992, mostly because those guys are legends now in Toronto. We're talking about a team with at least 2 HOFers (possibly more one day).

But I can't believe the lack of love Gruber gets. His '92 season was abysmal in hindsight, but we expected (on paper) a lot more from him. I would say that the expectations of the two 3B are eerily similar.

Jack Morris and Jeff Kent. I think Kent earned it. Morris is borderline. You can make a good case either way for Morris but I'm in the "against" category.

Actually there isn't one good case for Morris. I know you said you're against, but I don't get why people think he's even borderline.

ERA - His 3.90 is sandwiched between James Shields (3.89) and Max Scherzer (3.92).

Wins - He's behind Jamie Moyer (262)

Playoffs - he had one great game, but a 3.80 ERA isn't good enough to prove he's a dominant post season arm. Curt Schilling went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA over 19 starts (133 innings). Compare that to Morris who was 7-4 in 13 games with a 3.80 ERA.

The only case for Morris is Truthiness, that he feels like a Hall of Famer despite all evidence to the contrary. And I didn't even bother going to advanced stats here.

Last edited by Twitchy; 12-30-2012 at 03:41 PM.

Vic Mackey: You better figure out how much you hate me. And how you're going to deal with that. 'Cause I'm not going anywhere.

Actually there isn't one good case for Morris. I know you said you're against, but I don't get why people think he's even borderline.

ERA - His 3.90 is sandwiched between James Shields (3.89) and Max Scherzer (3.92).

Wins - He's behind Jamie Moyer (262)

Playoffs - he had one great game, but a 3.80 ERA isn't good enough to prove he's a dominant post season arm. Curt Schilling went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA over 19 starts (133 innings). Compare that to Morris who was 7-4 in 13 games with a 3.80 ERA.

The only case for Morris is Truthiness, that he feels like a Hall of Famer despite all evidence to the contrary. And I didn't even bother going to advanced stats here.

But he came up big when it counted! He just went out there every 5th day and did what it took to get wins!

But he came up big when it counted! He just went out there every 5th day and did what it took to get wins!

that doesnt make you a HOFamer. God careers are just that, Good. Doesn't make you are HOFamer neither does being "good" for a long period of time. To me HOFamer is someone who excelled as a top player in the game or at least their position for a period of time. Neither applies to Morris. Kent maybe around 2000-2002...maybe.

To me HOFamer is someone who excelled as a top player in the game or at least their position for a period of time. Neither applies to Morris.

The argument I usually read for Morris is that he should be measured against his peers for his era. That from 1977 (you could even go back to 1976) through to 1992, nobody won more games than Morris. I do believe over the course of an 18 year career, win total should count for something. But that said, there's far better statistical arguments to keep him out of the hall.

As for Kent, his career WAR places him in HOF territory alone. All but 4 secondbaggers with higher wars are in the hall. We could extend this into a debate regarding Biggio, Whitaker, etc but sticking to Kent...

Among second basemen...
HR: 1st all time (377 homers. Next up was Rogers Hornsby at 301. Honestly, on that stat differential alone, he warrants serious consideration.)
RBI: 3rd all time
Doubles: 4th all time
OPS: 11th all time
Runs: 12th all time
Hits: 12th all time
Games played: 13th all time

The argument I usually read for Morris is that he should be measured against his peers for his era. That from 1977 (you could even go back to 1976) through to 1992, nobody won more games than Morris. I do believe over the course of an 18 year career, win total should count for something. But that said, there's far better statistical arguments to keep him out of the hall.

As for Kent, his career WAR places him in HOF territory alone. All but 4 secondbaggers with higher wars are in the hall. We could extend this into a debate regarding Biggio, Whitaker, etc but sticking to Kent...

Among second basemen...
HR: 1st all time (377 homers. Next up was Rogers Hornsby at 301. Honestly, on that stat differential alone, he warrants serious consideration.)
RBI: 3rd all time
Doubles: 4th all time
OPS: 11th all time
Runs: 12th all time
Hits: 12th all time
Games played: 13th all time

To me, he's a hall of famer.

Really pitcher wins is what you are account his HOF status on?

As for Kent he's borderline to me. I think he gets in but to me he is borderline. Never considered him one of teh greatest players during his team but again the case can be made i guess. Though again Kent was trade half way through the season so i dont consider him as part of that team that won the series.

92 team had a clear advantage, that most core guys had 1-2 years to gel and work together. A cemented bond between alomar, carter, olerud, white, borders, key, maldonado, stodlemyle, henke, ward, gruber was already established especially under cito and co.

compared, 13 team barely has any time to get used to one another and comfortable before working towards a championship. like even pujols, fielder was slow coming out of the gate which shows adjustment and settling down all take time. of course, gibbons is another question mark when he rubs his fists to challenge stars

I reserve my doubts and will be happy as long as jays get into playoffs but winning it all is an overachievement at this stage

Again, not my argument, since I don't believe he should be in the Hall.

That said, I can understand the argument contextually (in being measured against his peers over the same period.) I believe wins is an acceptable supportive stat for far more important numbers crucial for Hall of Fame consideration. It's those "far more important numbers" that Morris lacks.